The Historians of Late Antiquity (27 page)

Some historians attempt to assert their reliability by the bald claim that they are dedicated to the truth. This seems to be more characteristic of the classicizing style of history. Thus, Ammianus concludes his history with the claim that he has never knowingly strayed from the truth (31.16.9). His assertion of his truthfulness prior to his satirical digression on the morals of the inhabitants of Rome is, perhaps, itself a satire of this traditional historical stance (14.6.2). Eunapius claims that the purpose and highest goal of history is to describe events without bias (
fr
. 1), and he later adds that despite the bitterness and horror of the events he is about to recount, the reader will appreciate them nevertheless because of their truthfulness (
fr
. 66.2).

Historians may also demonstrate their truthfulness through descriptions of their sources. Many historians support particular details in their works by reference to their personal involvement. The simple claim by the historian that he has witnessed the events himself, or has heard them from eyewitnesses, is common. The “seen or heard” formula may be found in its pure form in Ammianus (15.1.1), Eunapius (
fr
. 30), Socrates (6.
pref
. 9–10), and Sozomen (1.113). Ammianus also reveals his participation in large parts of his history by his use of first-person pronouns. In the preface to his continuation of Eusebius’ history, Rufinus says that he will include events that he personally has remembered (
10.pref
.), including his familiarity with the life and works of Didymus the Blind (11.7) and with the activities of various monks of Egypt (11.4, 11.8). Eutropius points out that he had been a member of Julian’s expedition to Persia (10.16.1), and Sozomen vouches for the healing power of the church called the Michaelion, because he himself has been a beneficiary (2.3.9). Sozomen relates several other first-hand accounts. When a sinful woman ate bread during a religious ceremony, for example, the bread miraculously turned into stone in her mouth. Sozomen has seen the stone, complete with tooth marks, in a church (8.5.6). He has also witnessed the barbarian Sciri, who were turned into farmers and settled in different parts of the empire, during a visit to Bithynia (9.5.7). Olympiodorus’ argument that the Oasis was once an island is supported by his personal observation of fossil seashells in the desert (
fr
. 32), and is reminiscent of Orosius’ proof of Noah’s flood based on seashells found on mountaintops (1.3.4).

The oral sources from whom the late antique historians claim to have gained information range from specific individuals with special knowledge of events to more vague reports from the inhabitants of a particular area or simply from “people” in general. Church historians seem more likely to directly cite their sources. Rufinus credits Aedesius and Bacurius for accounts of the foreign missions in which they participated (10.10, 10.11), and his account of the torture of Theodore during the time of Julian comes straight from the victim (10.37). Socrates claims to have always sought out eyewitnesses and carefully weighed their stories, to ensure that his account is truthful (5.19.10; 6.
pref
.9–10). He apparently judges that he will win more respect from his readers by revealing his sources among the Novatians, such as the priest Auxanon, than he will lose for his association with schismatics (1.10, 1.13.2, 4.28). Other church historians also reveal their sources for oral information. Sozomen, for example, has spoken with people who witnessed miracles performed by Arsacius (4.16.13), and Orosius cites a man from Narbo for his claims about the Gothic leader Ataulf (7.43.4).

Historians also refer to oral sources with less specific detail. Socrates says that the events surrounding the discovery of the True Cross by the empress Helena are known to be true by most of the people of Constantinople (1.17.10). Similarly, the miraculous deeds of Spyridion are known to be true, Sozomen says, by the inhabitants of Cyprus (1.11.1). Orosius recognizes that the destruction of Gildo and his barbarians would seem unbelievable if it were not for the testimony of eyewitnesses (7.36.12). Eunapius says that he has drawn upon oral sources for his description of the Huns, but offers no evidence of their identity (
fr
. 41).

Historians refer to the written works which they have consulted to prove their reliability and to give evidence of the arduous task of gathering and weighing evidence. The bald citation of sources is relatively rare in classicizing histories that treat contemporary events. Ammianus cites Timagenes as his source for a geographical digression on the original inhabitants of Gaul (15.9.2), and Cicero and Sallust on the habits and history of the Gauls (15.12.4, 6). The massive cliffs called the Symplegades, Ammianus says, seem motionless, and it would be difficult to believe that they had once magically crushed any ships passing between them, were it not for the evidence of all of the songs of the poets (22.8.14–15). Ammianus also claims to have combed the records to discover evidence of any eunuch in the past who could be compared to the excellent Eutherius (16.7.8). To demonstrate his extensive knowledge
of the subject, Ammianus anticipates the reader’s possible suggestion, the eunuch Menophilus, and explains why this eunuch does not reach the level of excellence attained by Eutherius (16.7.9–10).

Orosius will often cite non-Christian writers to support Christian contentions. Tacitus’
Histories
, for example, is cited in order to demonstrate that pagan authors, too, know something of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (1.5). Orosius similarly uses the pagan historian Justin to provide evidence for Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt (1.8). After making reference to many sources in his first book, however, Orosius follows single sources almost exclusively in the later books.

The Greek church historians, following in the footsteps of Eusebius, contain not only verbatim documents but also large direct excerpts from writers such as Athanasius and Rufinus. Rather than pointing the reader toward the source for a section of church history, the historian reproduces the source directly. Occasionally a historian will simply direct the reader to another work for further information on a subject. Rufinus, for example, refuses to repeat information about the life of the monk Antony, since the reader may more easily turn to available translations of Athanasius’ work on the saint (10.8). Similarly, Socrates encourages his readers to peruse the sermons of John Chrysostom themselves (6.4.9). If readers wish to learn more about the philosophy of the heretic Eunomius, Sozomen suggests that they go to his works or those of others which explain them, for Sozomen himself finds them rather difficult to understand (6.27.7).

Late antique historians are particularly prone to mention their sources in order to refute or attack them. Classical historiography was born in polemic, with Herodotus criticizing Homer and Thucydides criticizing Herodotus in turn. Criticism of predecessors allows the historian to boast of his own strengths and reveal his own historiographical ideals in attacking their opposites. Socrates’ work, in particular, contains a continual series of criticisms of his sources and of other historians. Socrates draws often, for example, upon the collection of church documents made by a certain Sabinus and known as the
Synagoge
. Sabinus was a bishop of the Macedonian heresy, whose perspective on the documents in his collection was hostile to Socrates’ Nicene orthodoxy. Socrates complains that Sabinus has called those promulgating the Nicene Creed “fools and simpletons,” and that he has ignored some evidence and twisted other evidence to fit his views (1.8.24–7). Socrates also accuses
Sabinus of inconsistency for using Eusebius as a trustworthy source even though Eusebius, unlike Sabinus, was a supporter of the Nicene Creed (1.8.26, 1.9.28). Sabinus criticized the flaws of Athanasius, and Socrates defends Athanasius by accusing Sabinus of overlooking similar or worse flaws in the activities of Athanasius’ enemies (2.15.8–11). Socrates further accuses Sabinus of purposefully omitting from his collection the letters of Pope Julius on behalf of Athanasius, in the interest of sullying Athanasius’ character (2.17.10–11).

When Socrates criticizes his predecessor Eusebius, he points more gently to omissions or errors, without attributing to him the willful dishonesty he attributes to Sabinus. Socrates says that his history is necessary to supplement the work of Eusebius because Eusebius failed to treat Arianism thoroughly, and because his praise of Constantine was excessive (1.1). By disassociating himself from Eusebius in this way, Socrates proclaims that he sees doctrinal disputes as central to his successor history, and that his work will be history rather than panegyric. Later Socrates says that Eusebius had not treated the history of Manichaeism with enough detail, and that he himself will supplement Eusebius’ account with more information drawn from the work of a certain Archelaus (1.22.2–3). The aim is less to criticize his predecessor than to highlight Socrates’ resourcefulness and value independent of Eusebius. Socrates’ criticism of Rufinus has a similar tone (2.1). Although Rufinus’ chronology has proven to be incorrect, Socrates still plans to use his work where it has been verified, and no hint of purposeful fraud on Rufinus’ part is insinuated. Instead, Socrates emphasizes his own thoroughness and accuracy.

Socrates is sharply contentious when he discusses pagan writers. Upon the death of Julian, for example, he quotes a section of the funeral oration performed over the emperor by the pagan Libanius, in order to refute it (3.23). He later differentiates his history from pagan history by suggesting that authors of the latter felt free to deviate from the truth (6
.pref
. 3). In addition to criticizing secular historiography, Socrates attacks the work of Philip of Side, who had written not an ecclesiastical history but rather a Christian history. This sort of history, Socrates complains, is stylistically uneven, excessively long, and confused in chronology (7.27).

Neither Sozomen nor Theodoret provides many targeted criticisms in the style of Socrates, perhaps because their histories are more derivative than his and are thus less concerned with source criticism. When Sozomen warns readers against the dangers
involved in consulting document collections, since these collections were made by partisans, he may be echoing in more general terms the specific criticisms Socrates made against Sabinus (1.1.15–16). Sozomen is also critical of unnamed pagan sources. For example, he rejects the suggestion attributed only to “pagans” (probably Eunapius) that Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was motivated by a desire for absolution after his execution of his son, Crispus (1.5). Sozomen demonstrates that the chronology does not support such a charge, and that this form of absolution would in any case have been obtainable through the traditional Greek cult. He concludes that this accusation, then, must be the result of purposeful slander of the Christian religion.

Orosius begins his narrative with an accusation, claiming that other historians, both Greek and Latin, by starting their histories with the Assyrian king Ninus, had suggested that the world did not have a beginning (1.1.1–5). Orosius will, instead, begin with Adam, the first human being. Throughout his work, Orosius suggests that the dishonesty of earlier historians stems from their patriotic desire to vaunt the successes of their homelands (4.20.6–9, 5.3.4). The historian twice suggests that, given this motivation, the historical record contains a bias toward success and prosperity (4.5.12–13, 5.19.22). Each instance of failure or disaster should then, Orosius argues, be magnified, which further emphasizes his thesis of the misery of pre-Christian times.

Eunapius also begins his history with an accusation, criticizing Dexippus for what he characterizes as his slavish devotion to chronology at the expense of morally instructive narrative (
fr
. 1). This criticism, however, comes only in the midst of other reflections on Dexippus and his historical abilities. Later Eunapius is careful to draw a distinction between historians who are purposely deceitful and those whom necessity or haste led into error (
fr
. 66.1). Eunapius is forgiving to those who wrote during politically dangerous times and therefore were overly favorable to those in power, although he says that he himself has chosen, instead, the path of truth. Eunapius is also indulgent toward those whose histories are inadequate simply for lack of care and attention. He directs his outrage toward those historians who have altered their histories to flatter the powerful with irrelevant details. His criticism recalls Ammianus’ concern that the writing of contemporary history may require the historian to include trivial material, which is beneath the dignity of history, in order to please an audience desirous of recognition and fame (26.1.1–2).

It was commonly understood in antiquity that skill at rhetoric was dependent upon the good character of the speaker. If the reader approved of the character of the writer of history, he would be more trusting toward its contents. Some of the methods already described, such as professions of truth-seeking, the support of the powerful, and the demonstration of skill in handling sources, contribute to the portrayal of the historian as a man to be trusted. Other methods of self-portrayal are also deployed to incline the reader to feel more confident about the historian’s character.

The inclusion of the historian himself as a character in his history not only increases the trustworthiness of the events he narrates as an eyewitness, but also may encourage the reader to see the historian as a more trustworthy man, owing to the competence and cleverness he reveals. Ammianus, Priscus, and probably Olympiodorus narrate their own participation in events to highlight their good judgement and success. Ammianus’ boldness and ingenuity in his escape from Amida, and Priscus’ diplomatic skill and good sense during the embassy to Attila, are evidence of their commendable character. Olympiodorus may have demonstrated his fortitude during the many near-disasters at sea he seems to have described (
frs
. 19, 28, 35.1). Perhaps Orosius’ lamentations over the tribulations he had endured can also be seen in this light (3.20.6–7). Orosius claims to better understand the turmoil he describes because of his own sufferings, and the description of his own sufferings may also serve as a defense against charges that he is insensitive to the horrors of the sack of Rome which he seeks to minimize.